Statute of limitations: Dylan Farrow is misleading all survivors

Dylan Farrow has accused her adoptive father Woody Allen to have sexually abused her in an attic when she was 7 years old. The statute of limitations to bring Woody Allen to civil court hasn’t expired.

During an interview, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour questioned Cate Blanchett, saying: “How do you juxtapose being a #MeToo proponent, a Time’s Up proponent, and staying silent or having worked with Woody Allen?” Cate Blanchett’s answer was smart and measured:

“…if these allegations need to be re-examined which, in my understanding, they’ve been through court, then I’m a big believer in the justice system and setting legal precedents. If the case needs to be reopened, I am absolutely, wholeheartedly in support of that. Because I think that there’s one thing about—social media is fantastic about raising awareness about issues, but it’s not the judge and jury.”

Of course, this answer didn’t please to Dylan Farrow, who continues her efforts to shame actors who have worked with Woody Allen. But while she’s normally quick to thank those who say they won’t work again with her father, this time Dylan, perhaps embarrassed, hesitated before commenting on Blanchett’s statement. She waited a full week before tweeting:

Perhaps Ms. Blanchett is unaware of the statute of limitations that prevents my case (and so many others) from being reopened, but if she is looking for a legal perspective, there is plenty of that publicly available in both Justice Wilk’s and the NY Appellate Court’s judgments. https://t.co/ut1eD4q31V

It wasn’t long before educated people reminded Dylan that the statute of limitations DOESN’T prevent her to take Woody Allen in civil court. One smart voice was Samantha Geimer who was raped by Roman Polanski when she was 13 years old and who has previously denounced how she felt used by Mia Farrow pursuing her own vendetta against Woody Allen:

The statute of limitations is 30 years. You could still take him to civil court. You cannot refuse to use the legal system in the decades you had as an adult and then shame those who respect the rule of law and innocent until proven guilty. She owes you nothing.

I object to those using the #MeToo only for their narrow interests when it is for all of us, about all of use, to support all our choices. We all should be reaching down pulling others up, not reaching up to pull people down.

A tweet by Justin Levine – who has completely destroyed Maureen Orth’s (called by Dylan an “independent, highly respected journalist) lies for Vanity Fair, 10 Undeniable Facts – was reminding that it is easier to win in a civil court:

As others have mentioned here, the statute of limitations on a CIVIL case doesn’t expire until you are 48, AND there is an EASIER standard of proof required in a civil suit. Good news! So what are you waiting for?

There is not statute of limitations for 1st Degree Sexual Assault

Some others people reminded Dylan Farrow that if she had not changed her story regarding allegations of sexual abuse, criminal prosecution could even still be an option:

Perhaps criminal liability wouldn’t have been foreclosed had you not changed your story regarding sexual penetration, since 1st Degree Sexual Assault, under CGS Sec.53a-70, can be prosecuted “at any time”. Perhaps…

Perhaps you thing we didn’t look up the original accusations and realize that you changed aggravated sexual assault (finger penetration, no evidence) to sexual assault (just touching). No statute of limitations. What about a civil case? Right, made up accusations leave no evidence pic.twitter.com/0Er3ANGC1m

“…and said she just remembered that Dylan had told her that Mr. Allen had put a finger in her vagina.”

Dylan Farrow version in 2013

On October 23, 2013, Vanity Fair published a new article by Maureen Orth, “Mamma Mia”. This article reminds that in 1992 “…Dylan told her mother that Allen had stuck his finger up her vagina and kissed her all over in the attic…”. But later, we can read “He TOUCHED her “private part.”

Is Dylan Farrow lying again ?

How is it possible that Dylan doesn’t know that the statute of limitations doesn’t prevent her from taking Woody Allen to civil court? Isn’t it legitimate for people to think that she knows this, but that she’s lying, as she has many times before?

Dylan Farrow is not interested in due process, only mob trial-by-media: she exists publicly solely through her accusations against Woody Allen. She owes her new book publishing deal (and huge advance) to the father she continuously denigrates to establish her name. Dishonesty is a Farrow trait (except for Moses).

Rather than saying her brother Moses “is dead to me” – how nice when you consider that her sister Lark died from AIDS in poverty at 35; her brother Thaddeus killed himself at 27; and her sister Tam also committed suicide at 21 – she should re-read Moses’ essay, “A SON SPEAKS OUT”.

ALL facts say that Woody Allen is innocent. ALL facts say that Dylan Farrow is lying. ALL.

40 Undeniable facts about Mia Farrow and her family

…betrayed her friend Dory Previn… lied in court… videotaped Dylan in many days… refused to take a polygraph… coached Dylan… slapped Moses face… drug problem… dies from AIDS at 35… kill herself at 21… kill himself at 27… in jail for sexual abuse… Net Worth $60 Million… committed suicide… hit Soon-Yi on the face… asked her to lie… to rape a 13yo girl… with my daddy in the attic… favored her biological children… asked for help on GoFundMe…

Statute of limitations: Dylan Farrow is misleading all survivors

Statute of limitations doesn't prevent Dylan Farrow to take Woody Allen in civil court. And even criminal prosecution could still be an option if she had not changed her story regarding allegations of sexual abuse.